Marinakis suing Palace for Defamation

[Spindle]

Precendents

1. The Core Precedent for "Bane and Antidote"

• Charleston v News Group Newspapers Ltd [1995]
  • The Case: A tabloid printed a fake, digitally superimposed image of two Neighbours actors' faces on near-naked, pornographic bodies. The headline was highly provocative. However, the accompanying text explicitly stated that the actors were innocent victims of a cyber-hoax.
  • The Ruling: The House of Lords rejected the actors' defamation claim. The court ruled that the text (the antidote) completely neutralized the shocking image (the bane). A reader who only looked at the image and headline could not claim defamation because the law assumes the ordinary reasonable reader reads the context as a whole.
  • Application to Marinakis: Crystal Palace's lawyers will argue the text explicitly saying "is not involved in..." serves as a total, simultaneous antidote to the shocking imagery
• Pitman v Jersey Evening Post [2012]
  • The Case: A newspaper published a satirical cartoon depicting two local politicians surrounded by stacks of banknotes with the caption "4x the salary darling!", implying they were greedy "money grabbers".
  • The Ruling: The court dismissed the defamation claim. The judge ruled that the ordinary reasonable reader understands the hyperbolic and comedic nature of political cartoons and does not read them as literal statements of fact. Crucially, the court noted that public figures must be more robust and resilient in the face of satire than private citizens.
  • Application to Marinakis: As a highly visible, powerful football club owner and global shipping magnate, the court will expect Marinakis to have a much higher threshold for tolerating aggressive fan satire

In other words, Maryknickers is a fragile egotistic nasty wanker. I imagine this fat f*** was seriously bullied at school hence his viciousness as an adult with power. File under FC for fat c***

 

[Eagleman13]

Did you ask Eagleman’s permission to post Python stuff? 🤣 it’s usually his job

You still got a good memory Nige, tips hat

 

[Joseph Paxton]

Precendents

1. The Core Precedent for "Bane and Antidote"

• Charleston v News Group Newspapers Ltd [1995]
  • The Case: A tabloid printed a fake, digitally superimposed image of two Neighbours actors' faces on near-naked, pornographic bodies. The headline was highly provocative. However, the accompanying text explicitly stated that the actors were innocent victims of a cyber-hoax.
  • The Ruling: The House of Lords rejected the actors' defamation claim. The court ruled that the text (the antidote) completely neutralized the shocking image (the bane). A reader who only looked at the image and headline could not claim defamation because the law assumes the ordinary reasonable reader reads the context as a whole.
  • Application to Marinakis: Crystal Palace's lawyers will argue the text explicitly saying "is not involved in..." serves as a total, simultaneous antidote to the shocking imagery
• Pitman v Jersey Evening Post [2012]
  • The Case: A newspaper published a satirical cartoon depicting two local politicians surrounded by stacks of banknotes with the caption "4x the salary darling!", implying they were greedy "money grabbers".
  • The Ruling: The court dismissed the defamation claim. The judge ruled that the ordinary reasonable reader understands the hyperbolic and comedic nature of political cartoons and does not read them as literal statements of fact. Crucially, the court noted that public figures must be more robust and resilient in the face of satire than private citizens.
  • Application to Marinakis: As a highly visible, powerful football club owner and global shipping magnate, the court will expect Marinakis to have a much higher threshold for tolerating aggressive fan satire

In other words, Maryknickers is a fragile egotistic nasty wanker. I imagine this fat f*** was seriously bullied at school hence his viciousness as an adult with power. File under FC for fat c***

Interesting case precedents! The first is when Madge and Harold Bishop sued The Dirty Digger and his News of the World for the provocative piece 😆...and lost😵

Defamation law has had a significant change as recent as last month with Vince (Dale) vs Associated Newspapers, although this hinged on assimilation of GDPR law that, on appeal saw Dale Vince prove 'reputational damage' against the Daily Mail. Folks still picking over the bones of that one. How it could apply to the Holmesdale banner ? i certainly do not know but a skillful lawyer could employ elements in the Marinakis argument.

If I were one of those involved in creating and displaying the banner, I would get lawyered up immediately. Defending even the satirical cartoonish intent of the banner could prove swiftly exorbitant!!

 

[jackosperoni]

Interesting case precedents! The first is when Madge and Harold Bishop sued The Dirty Digger and his News of the World for the provocative piece 😆...and lost😵

Defamation law has had a significant change as recent as last month with Vince (Dale) vs Associated Newspapers, although this hinged on assimilation of GDPR law that, on appeal saw Dale Vince prove 'reputational damage' against the Daily Mail. Folks still picking over the bones of that one. How it could apply to the Holmesdale banner ? i certainly do not know but a skillful lawyer could employ elements in the Marinakis argument.

If I were one of those involved in creating and displaying the banner, I would get lawyered up immediately. Defending even the satirical cartoonish intent of the banner could prove swiftly exorbitant!!

I remember a QC quoting the Neighbours case at us when the organisation I was working for considered litigation against the Sunday Times for a lurid image which bore no resemblance to the copy below.

We were advised it would take an exorbitant amount of money to get News International to court. That we would have to prove reputational damage in terms of negative impact on turnover, and be prepared for most of our senior management team to be tied up for a year fighting the case.

Unsurprisingly, we stepped back, although I remember leaving Chambers with a very angry CEO who bent my ear the whole walk back to Waterloo Station.

Precedence is everything in the law, even when deep pockets have manipulated the outcome to their advantage.

 

[pssguy]

I remember a QC quoting the Neighbours case at us when the organisation I was working for considered litigation against the Sunday Times for a lurid image which bore no resemblance to the copy below.

We were advised it would take an exorbitant amount of money to get News International to court. That we would have to prove reputational damage in terms of negative impact on turnover, and be prepared for most of our senior management team to be tied up for a year fighting the case.

Unsurprisingly, we stepped back, although I remember leaving Chambers with a very angry CEO who bent my ear the whole walk back to Waterloo Station.

Precedence is everything in the law, even when deep pockets have manipulated the outcome to their advantage.

On the counter, Marinakis might be quite happy to get Palace's management tied up whilst he leaves it to his minions. I doubt we have any case against him for a frivolous lawsuit. Maybe something like the BBC asking Trump for financial records in their case might work
Anyways, generally in favour of Parish, but he has handled this whole business badly from start to finish, including that jibe about sometimes the good guys win

 

[jackosperoni]

On the counter, Marinakis might be quite happy to get Palace's management tied up whilst he leaves it to his minions. I doubt we have any case against him for a frivolous lawsuit. Maybe something like the BBC asking Trump for financial records in their case might work
Anyways, generally in favour of Parish, but he has handled this whole business badly from start to finish, including that jibe about sometimes the good guys win

Sadly, the good guys rarely win in court. Witness Trump.
I think there may be issues about Marinakis’ relationship with Glasner and the recent Telegraph interview suggests the pair have been talking for some time.
If that is the case, Palace should ask for Glasner’s phone records and if they show the pair were talking when Glasner was still a Palace employee, there may be grounds to countersue.
The fan in Parish and the anger about the Europa Cup nonsense from Forest last year may have allowed his heart to rule his head but I sincerely hope that Palace can turn this case around.
The Infantino nonsense in the World Cup shows how rotten football is. VAR decisions in favour of top clubs provide more examples. And, that’s before we get to Clattenburg’s handling of the 2016 cup final. I think the Palace management and we fans love the ‘David v Goliath’ challenge and thumbing our noses against the establishment. It’s just a sign of the times that these issues can’t be resolved on the pitch.
But, our wealthier owners have the means to keep Marinakis out of court and firmly put him in his place. Let’s hope they step up to the plate!

 

[Phil’s Barber]

Probably a ruse to get Munoz or JP.

‘If you agree to sell us Munoz / Mateta then we’ll drop the lawsuit’.

 

[pssguy]

Probably a ruse to get Munoz or JP.

‘If you agree to sell us Munoz / Mateta then we’ll drop the lawsuit’.

and 'give' rather than 'sell'. I'm afraid Parish took a knife to a gunfight

 

[park the bus]

Parish: "It's a fair cop guv, we've already been fined by the FA and I thought that was the end of it. To be honest I have no idea how those supporters smuggled that banner in, but to set the record straight I've had a word with their mothers and they promise it won't happen again".

 

[palace99]

Precendents

1. The Core Precedent for "Bane and Antidote"

• Charleston v News Group Newspapers Ltd [1995]
  • The Case: A tabloid printed a fake, digitally superimposed image of two Neighbours actors' faces on near-naked, pornographic bodies. The headline was highly provocative. However, the accompanying text explicitly stated that the actors were innocent victims of a cyber-hoax.
  • The Ruling: The House of Lords rejected the actors' defamation claim. The court ruled that the text (the antidote) completely neutralized the shocking image (the bane). A reader who only looked at the image and headline could not claim defamation because the law assumes the ordinary reasonable reader reads the context as a whole.
  • Application to Marinakis: Crystal Palace's lawyers will argue the text explicitly saying "is not involved in..." serves as a total, simultaneous antidote to the shocking imagery
• Pitman v Jersey Evening Post [2012]
  • The Case: A newspaper published a satirical cartoon depicting two local politicians surrounded by stacks of banknotes with the caption "4x the salary darling!", implying they were greedy "money grabbers".
  • The Ruling: The court dismissed the defamation claim. The judge ruled that the ordinary reasonable reader understands the hyperbolic and comedic nature of political cartoons and does not read them as literal statements of fact. Crucially, the court noted that public figures must be more robust and resilient in the face of satire than private citizens.
  • Application to Marinakis: As a highly visible, powerful football club owner and global shipping magnate, the court will expect Marinakis to have a much higher threshold for tolerating aggressive fan satire

In other words, Maryknickers is a fragile egotistic nasty wanker. I imagine this fat f*** was seriously bullied at school hence his viciousness as an adult with power. File under FC for fat c***

Yep, there is a 'reasonable person' check for these type of claims. Essentially would a reasonable person interpret something as x or y etc.

I think it is a high bar for the fat Greek to clear.

 

[Teddy Eagle]

Yep, there is a 'reasonable person' check for these type of claims. Essentially would a reasonable person interpret something as x or y etc.

I think it is a high bar for the fat Greek to clear.

The higher the better when old Round Boy would have trouble clearing a match box.

 

[palace99]

Sadly, the good guys rarely win in court. Witness Trump.
I think there may be issues about Marinakis’ relationship with Glasner and the recent Telegraph interview suggests the pair have been talking for some time.
If that is the case, Palace should ask for Glasner’s phone records and if they show the pair were talking when Glasner was still a Palace employee, there may be grounds to countersue.
The fan in Parish and the anger about the Europa Cup nonsense from Forest last year may have allowed his heart to rule his head but I sincerely hope that Palace can turn this case around.
The Infantino nonsense in the World Cup shows how rotten football is. VAR decisions in favour of top clubs provide more examples. And, that’s before we get to Clattenburg’s handling of the 2016 cup final. I think the Palace management and we fans love the ‘David v Goliath’ challenge and thumbing our noses against the establishment. It’s just a sign of the times that these issues can’t be resolved on the pitch.
But, our wealthier owners have the means to keep Marinakis out of court and firmly put him in his place. Let’s hope they step up to the plate!

Court action is expensive, so usually only the very wealthy people go down the defamation/libel route.
Even millionaires struggle - why is Vardy still trying to get a club at 39 - to pay off his wife's court debts.

Trump essentially bullies his opponent into submission and the billion pound lawsuits usually gets settled for a fraction of the amount being claimed to limit further costs.

However, Palace are owned by a couple of billionaires so may be prepared to take this on.

Let's see

 

[Frickin Saweet]

On the counter, Marinakis might be quite happy to get Palace's management tied up whilst he leaves it to his minions. I doubt we have any case against him for a frivolous lawsuit. Maybe something like the BBC asking Trump for financial records in their case might work
Anyways, generally in favour of Parish, but he has handled this whole business badly from start to finish, including that jibe about sometimes the good guys win

how is it Parrish's fault? Unless you're saying he should have acted more forcefully against the fans who unfurled the banner? He's never going to ban the HF, which is what you'd need to to to make a proper statement on the club being strongly against 'defamation' of another club's owner

 

[taylors lovechild]

Private Eye often speaks about how high the bar is for defamation cases in the UK, so it'll be interesting to see what reputational damage Marinakis can prove. I mean, most football fans presumed he was dodgy before the banner, based on the numerous cases brought against him, even if he was innocent in the eyes of the law. Plus the banner was clearly banter, which in the context of the football world goes on all the time. It would set a dangerous precedent if someone could sue over what is said or written by fans.

Ultimately, it could prove embarrassing for the fat boy if a judge rules that he's basically being a big baby and wasting the court's time (as happened to Prince Harry). It may be that the best outcome he can hope for is that Palace settle to avoid wasting time and expenses in court.

 

[chris123]

Private Eye often speaks about how high the bar is for defamation cases in the UK, so it'll be interesting to see what reputational damage Marinakis can prove. I mean, most football fans presumed he was dodgy before the banner, based on the numerous cases brought against him, even if he was innocent in the eyes of the law. Plus the banner was clearly banter, which in the context of the football world goes on all the time. It would set a dangerous precedent if someone could sue over what is said or written by fans.

Ultimately, it could prove embarrassing for the fat boy if a judge rules that he's basically being a big baby and wasting the court's time (as happened to Prince Harry). It may be that the best outcome he can hope for is that Palace settle to avoid wasting time and expenses in court.

It's civil though and therefore balance of probabilities?

 

[Palace in the Blood]

In the UK, defamation of character is a false statement made by someone that causes, or is likely to cause, serious harm to another person's or business's reputation. It covers both written and spoken statements, and under the Defamation Act 2013, a claim requires proof of "serious harm" (or financial loss for businesses). [1, 2]
Libel vs. Slander

• • Libel: Defamation in a permanent or written form. This includes social media posts, newspaper articles, emails, texts, blogs, and video broadcasts.
  Slander: Defamation in a temporary form, typically spoken words, casual verbal conversations, or transient gestures.

Key Rules for a Claim

• • Falsity: The statement must be false. True statements are not defamation, no matter how damaging they are.
  • Publication: The statement must be communicated to at least one third party (someone other than the person being defamed).
  • Fact vs. Opinion: The statement must be presented as a factual assertion, not just personal abuse or an honest opinion.
  • Time Limit: A defamation claim in England and Wales must generally be brought within 12 months from the date of the first publication. [1, 2, 3]

Main Defences

• • Truth: Proving the statement is substantially true.
  • Honest Opinion: Proving it was an opinion that an honest person could have held based on facts existing at the time.
  • Website Operator Defence: Showing the website did not post the content directly and handled takedown requests properly. [1, 2, 3, 4]
  This is law on defamation and It seems to me that there are a number of areas where his case against club fails.
• He has to prove serious harm as basis of claim
• The wording on banner is it an opinion or statement of fact. He needs to prove it was latter
• Is it an honest opinion?
• How quickly did Palace get it removed? And did he make a request?

 

[mezzer]

One silver lining to all this.....at least we don't have to wait years for the next eclipse. One happens every time he gets out of his seat at half time

 

[ASCPFC]

Remember: he'll be busy paying the judge off.

 

[doombear]

Remember: he'll be busy paying the judge off.

Don't you mean "making the judge an offer he can't refuse" as in "if you don't find for me you'll find the gun held to Gibbs-Whites' head against your temple"?

 

[crvenaeagle]

I don't understand this guy's obsession with Palace, it must go back further than we are all aware. His fascination seems to have started with the letter to UEFA fiasco but I suspect that there's something to do with Textor-Glasner-Palace that goes back much further than we know.

Anyway, I certainly am curious as to why he's brought the case forward precisely now and not earlier.